Much of this sounds promising. The idea of energy independence is certainly a contentious issue, but with automobile gas consumption decreasing in the US and national oil sources increasing, it seems like we at least have the equation working in our favor.

Unfortunately, as this article suggests, Americans still rely too much on oil. While solar and wind energy sources are not discussed in this piece, hopefully up-front costs for harnessing solar and wind power will also decrease with time (as technology improves) and we can depend less and less on natural gas and oil.

Four more years of no real energy policy, reducing the standard of living of millions of Americans while talking-up alternative energy which does not exist or is not feasible. Wind is unreliable, and solar is expensive and has to be subsidized. Nat gas is the bridge fuel of choice but the government is too anti to understand the issues. Sad.

Democrats arguements on "green technology" is completely at fault for American's stubborn love of oil. There is no reason to make the argument idealogical. If you say america should change because it is destroying the world, your going to get a huge argument about why america isn't destroying the world.
But if you say America should switch to this technology because its efficent, will cost everyone less, and improves our defense because we could be self supporting, no one can argue the point. Who is going to say, I want less efficent cars because I like paying more for gas?
Make the argument about efficency and sell a future where all american's houses have a net-zero energy usage and even more expensive energy cost less. Houses that can product enough electricity to power a car for free are possible, and who wouldn't want that?
It doesn't matter if someone believes drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere is a good idea, if you counter with that being the more expensive option. Also, even if you don't believe in Global warming, everyone know coal and oil polute, and if you disagree, I would challenge you to stand in a closed garage with a car on or a lit charcoal grill. Its not an argument about saving the world, its all about technology.

funny how germany is not just kicking the world's butt when it comes to solar, but standing over it and spitting in its face, and yet nobody's saying a word about it here. we're so busy digging up dead dinosaurs that we're totally ignoring the big shiny thing that's not going to go away for a long, long time.

Persistent drought conditions throughout a great portion of the United States should be a harbinger for the demise of fracking, but apparently not. As a resident of the State of Colorado, I have witnessed several years of drought, enornmous fires, lack of irrigation for crops, but fracking continues. Billions of gallons of water are being pumped into the ground! We certainly will not be able to eat or drink natural gas, but we will have an abundance of it!

You had better check your facts. "Billions of gallons . . " are not being pumped into the ground. The water is re-cycled and re-used in other fracking jobs. There are companies which specialize in this reuse. Linking fires to fracking is a bit out there . . .

Science tells us in no uncertain terms that our fossil fuel use causes climate change, yet people rejoice when a new oil or gas source can be exploited.

Reminds of heroin addicts who have just found a vein that can still be penetrated with a needle, or an obese diabetic who's just won a fee year-supply of candy. The difference being that those at least have the courtesy to keep most of the misery to themselves.

It should also be mentioned that as the U.S. shifts to energy supplied by clean burning natural gas, and away from coal it is dropping its greenhouse gas emissions far faster than anyone predicted, and the switch to natural gas is accelerating this change. Its the U.S. energy industry, focused on practial new technology and earning a profit, that is doing more to make the U.S. energy self sufficient, control energy costs, convert the U.S. to cleaner burning fossil fuels, and reduce greenhouse emission, than Obama, Government, and all the radical green environmentalist put together. All Obama's $100 billion in Green investments has accomplished is filling the pocket of campaign contributors, while flushing $100 billion in borrowed dollars down the toilet.

The OP is referring to the fact that fewer greenhouse gas emissions are generated by natural gas plants as compared to coal power plants per unit of electricity produced. Of course once all coal power plants are shut down natural gas will cease to help the fight against global warming, but that wont be reached any time soon.

In the medium term natural gas presents one of the most realistic hopes in the fight against global warming and should be used to bridge the gap until new technologies become commercialised.

valwayne, it is interesting that you failed to mention how more fuel efficient cars, fuel efficient appliances/furnaces etc. are also making a huge contribution to the decline in emissions.

I don't know when folks like you (and the people who argue the complete opposite of you) will ever understand that there is no single solution to all the world's problems. Both the free market and government/regulation/policy have an important role to play in the solution.

ALL energy sources need to be researched and developed. It is not an either/or.

I find it amazing that you're touting natural gas as a cleaner alternative to traditional petroleum products. Yes, natural gas burns cleaner, but the process of fracking produces methane which is more devasting for the climate than carbon emissions. Also, the billions of gallons of water injected into shale beds, where does that come from? A large portion of the country is plagued by persistent drought. Farmers in my state can't get water to irrigate their crops, but we pour billions of gallons into the ground! DRINK NATURAL GAS AND TELL HOW GOOD THAT TASTES.

Up until the past few years I always was amazed that I could replace my 6 year-old fridge with a new model maybe 30% or more efficient but I would always have problems finding any autos even slightly more efficient than my old car. Finally, automakers are investing time and energy into efficiency. You see even plain-old gas engines getting 40+ MPG now.

It is downright bizarre for a major publication to discuss the economics of fossil fuels up to 2035 without mentioning the carbon cost of these resources. If America is to be serious about global warming, it will indeed have to be self-sufficient, but in an entirely different energy technology. Not discussing this now is doing a disservice to your readership.

Do you seriously believe that everything but candlelight needs fossil fuels? We can generate all the electricity our two-person household needs with five solar panels on the roof. And we live at 47 degrees north.

I believe global warming is a fact. At the same time I realize that there is no green technology or even combination of green technologies at this point that can take the place of fossil fuels. That's not to say that renewables are not worth striving for. As a number of people have stated here, natural gas appears to be the least evil of the alternatives available to bridge our societies to renewables.

A "liberal" is a "conservative" who has not been mugged yet. In other words, every well meaning "save the world type" will change their tune once their self interest is at stake, i.e. $10 per gallon of gas, etc. Ergo another of life's truisms; "Necessity is the mother of invention". Meaning until the waves are lapping at people's feet you will be unsuccessful in your social engineering goals. And a last word of encouragment for you, I hear many posters talk about this new found source of energy as a "bridge" strategy until we discover/develope alternative technologies...hope springs eternal. Take Care!

It is interesting to see that the US has immensely benefited from the progressive establishment of energy free markets around the world they have helped to build through dozen of years of intellectual influence to import vast amount of oil and gas at a small price (incredibly the US imported not crude oil but refined products, since it built its last refinery in 1971!) but now having new reserves of fossil fuels they are hesitating into sharing it on the world market where demand for natural gas, even liquefied at a higher price, is enormous (Japan and Korea especially).

Free markets, good for us when it comes to import their resources but not for me when I am in a position to export them through various free trade agreement I have with other countries and regional economic zones.

Well it is going to be interesting to see it develop in the next years. Which way the US will choose : protectionism or free trade? Hamilton or Jefferson? In the energy sector or industry or in other fields it is going to be really interesting to see at which point the US will support their own ideology.

The article overlooks significant political resistance to fracturing here. Perhaps the opposition is justified, perhaps not, but depending on the location, projects could be significantly delayed by environmentalists and others concerned about the consequences of injecting this material into the ground(water). I wonder if the energy self-sufficiency projection takes into account the possibility of such delays.

Assuming The Economist doesn't have a Romneysque faith that American exceptionalism extends to geology, the obvious question to be asked, yet ignored here, is when will the same thing happen elsewhere.
The Economist is very good at the big picture. But when it comes to the UK, then we hear how England is too crowded (but not for wind turbines), we don't have enough water (!) and we should obsess about imperceptible earthquakes.
The narrative is : The US is wonderful. But here in Little Britain we have to operate on the reality of not today, but a 2008 Energy White Paper and will forever thus

I don't believe in Amerian exceptionalism but the development of tight oil and shale gas in the U.S is likely exceptional. Not sure where I read it (it may have been this publication) but the author made a creditable case for a prediction that the rapid rise in tight oil and shale gas, likely won't be repeated elsewhere.

The U.S had a unique combination of factors that allowed it to happen their. One of the most important factors being wide spread private ownership of sub-surface oil and gas rights.

I believe similar development will occur else in the world, but it won't occur as rapidly or be quite as fruitful.

The US can benefit financially and (to an extent) environmentally from this. Oil prices are going to remain high for the foreseeable future and the US has a lead in this technology. Therefore it makes sense for the US to use less oil at home and sell more overseas. What's needed is a federal gas tax. This will encourage auto makers to innovate and consumers to conserve. It might make a dent in the fiscal deficit.

At the same time get rid of the ethanol subsidies, which will offset the gas tax, lower food prices and save revenue at the same time.

Assuming the IEA is counting on production on federal land. If so, then energy production will not reach high levels because of the democrats who champion the environmental cause will block it. Especially considering fracking is the new demon to slay by this special interest lobby.

Domestic oil production has only increased mainly due to production from private lands and the Obama administration has strangled permits for federal lands, not to mention the knee-jerk over-reaction with the off-shore drilling moratorium, that set back oil production. A smaller off-shore driller: ATPG has gone into bankruptcy, despite some poor management decisions its is bankrupt due to the moratorium.

A quick comparison of domestic fossil fuel production statistics over the last decade or so will suffice to put the lie to your post. All production growth has occurred during Obama's (D) administration.

The Economist may be hasty & incorrect in definitively saying energy independence is a "no". However unpopular, Canada had a National Energy Policy (NEP) by which prices in consuming provinces like Ontario and Quebec were sheltered from world levels, to the chagrin of producing province, Alberta. NEP almost split that nation with Alberta even electing a separatist MP to the Parliament.

Thus, US could establish a similar “Made in America” price for fuels produced locally. But then, Texas would start threatening secession again!

I've already said my piece about the IEA forecasts, namely that I think that they're batty. There's no sense bellyaching about that any more.

Senator Ron Wyden is set to chair the senate committee that has oversight over export approval for natural gas. He may well block export projects - he's stated as much. Unfortunately, intentionally disconnecting North American gas prices from those of the rest of the world might also strangle much of the exploration that has caused the current windfall. That would also be a large redistribution of the benefits of the boom from the risk-taking producers to the users of natural gas, the ethics of which are dubious.

And of course Senator Wyden probably hasn't considered that some of the renewable energy projects he purports to support will also be strangled in the cradle if natural gas prices stay as artificially low as they are now.

I agree - keeping gas bottled up in North America is economically equivalent to setting a bottom price that producers can sell at. It amounts to subsidization of consumers, and has all the problems that come with that, namely inefficient use of energy by consumers and underinvestment by struggling producers.

What's wrong with that? Energy is strategic, not just commercial. It is up to each country to decide whether it has enough of a strategic resource to export, or to keep it for its own use. E.g. rare earths.

Many countries do subsidize oil and gas, and/or prevent the export of certain materials (like China, obviously). In my opinion this is usually wrong-headed. There are political and trade risks. China, for example, benefits enormously from imported commodities like iron ore. If they were to stop trading things they have in abundance, like rare earths, at ANY price, it could kick off tit for tat protectionism that hurts everyone.

But the bigger problem I have is that protectionism and subsidy leads to inefficiency and waste. How much electricity do Indian peasant farmers waste because it's given to them for free? How much oil do Saudis and Iranians fritter away on useless joyrides? Overall, humanity could make better use of those resources if they were valued correctly, not arbitrarily by some bureaucrat or artificially through some trade barrier. Including the exporter's citizens themselves - I would argue that Saudis would benefit more from the hard currency their oil would bring in than getting cheap gasoline from the government (it would certainly be better for the environment). But once people get used to such entitlements I suppose it's hard to convince them they should do without it for the sake of some abstract concepts.

I guess that I want low energy bills as much as the next guy but I suspect that there really is, somewhere, a hard limit on fossil resources, not to mention global warming. Cheap, and especially artificially cheap energy, would no nothing (and actually negatively impact) for eventually replacing fossil fuels with renewables of some sort.

Whatever the case, I think it's only fair that all industries and consumers pay the price. That is why I favour a carbon tax over carbon credits - it can be applied more fairly and transparently, and everyone contributes rather than one or two big ugly industries.